ライフサイエンスコーパス: detection limit

1 15 soil samples/h) and sensitive (ng/g level detection limits).

2 different types of microRNAs at an attomolar detection limit.

3 quantum yields, hereby defining the sensing detection limit.

4 M, under the optimal conditions, with a 1 nM detection limit.

5 ption, either missing at random or under the detection limit.

6 and the later type is caused by a technical detection limit.

7 pulation in the absence of ARG that is below detection limit.

8 served broad linear ranges and submicromolar detection limits.

9 ion steps and unsatisfactory picomolar-level detection limits.

10 apes, which improved separations and lowered detection limits.

11 escence assays with high sensitivity and low detection limits.

12 resolution and direct detection with sub-muM detection limits.

13 displayed broad dynamic range with admirable detection limits.

14 electrochemical detection of lead with a low detection limit (0.05 ng mL(-1)), over a wide linear con

15 linearity range (0.34-115 x 10(-8) M), lower detection limit (0.11 x 10(-8) M) and higher selectivity

16 selectivity, specificity, matrix effect, detection limit (0.161 nM), quantification limit (and 0.

17 ear (2 experiments) or below (7 experiments) detection limits (0.0004 mg/kg).

18 Detection limits (0.004-0.07 ug kg(-1)) were far below t

19 t improvement in detection sensitivity, with detection limits (0.01 ppm in PBS and 0.3 ppm in milk) b

20 nd 71.08 pA/nM.mum(2), respectively) and low detection limits (0.045 muM and 0.056 muM, respectively)

21 with superior properties including ultralow detection limit (~0.05 m s(-1) ), multiangle airflow dif

22 ons of GEM, from 1.5 to -93 muM, where a low detection limit 12.5 nmol L(-1), and 48.8 nmol L(-1) wer

23 sensor for real-time NO detection with a low detection limit (3.97 nmol), a wide sensing range (0.01-

24 ing towards divalent Pd ions with a very low detection limit (38 ppb), suggesting effective complexat

25 The detection limit (3sigma/ S) was 7.5, 7.8, and 4.4 nM for

26 - 500 mg L(-1); r(2) = 0.993) levels with a detection limit (3sigma/slope) of 0.001 mg L(-1).

27 The significantly low detection limit (42.18 pM) demonstrates the ultrasensiti

28 performance, with high sensitivity (with low detection limit, 50 muM), high selectivity in the presen

29 at three concentration levels with adequate detection limits (7 ng/L, S/N = 3).

30 performance of the biosensor in terms of low detection limit (8.75 +/- 0.64 pM) and high sensitivity

31 The agreement of the data, the low detection limit achieved, the rapid analysis (30 min), t

32 The detection limits achieved were 0.05 ng/mL for aflatoxin

33 of proton donors, resulting in an attomolar detection limit and a broad calibration range of more th

34 1,000 ng/ml) was applied to the kit and the detection limit and assay reproducibility were examined.

35 The obtained detection limit and preconcentration factor were 0.018 m

36 The detection limit and quantification were determined as 16

37 secondary amplification, which improves the detection limit and simplifies the operation compared to

38 rate the use of a SiPM in CE with zeptomolar detection limits and a dynamic range spanning 5 orders o

39 ty and specificity of current impedance GORD detection limits and identify optimized impedance standa

40 e plasma was neglectable and led to the same detection limits and linear dynamic range as in the chol

41 Under optimal conditions, the detection limits and linear dynamic ranges were achieved

42 The detection limits and linearity range of various OP biose

43 are required for sensing and offers improved detection limits and sensitivity for applications target

44 ll sample volumes (~pL) and low (~yoctomole) detection limits and, as such, is ideal for applications

45 in cell-concentration enabling a single-cell detection limit, and 9-fold reduction in needed time to

46 e fluorescence detectors with ultrasensitive detection limits are lacking (Vickerman et al.

47 reaction detection limits below 500 nM, the detection limits are within the physiologically relevant

48 dynamic range of 0.03-1.73 mug/mL TBZ with a detection limit as 8 ng/mL were obtained for the suggest

49 cation of tumor necrosis factor alpha with a detection limit as low as 3 pM.

50 etic response performance, high sensitivity (detection limits as low as 0.1 fmol and 0.05 fmol for gl

51 Detection limits as low as tens of ng m(-3) with lineari

52 the levels correlated with the tumor sizes (detection limit at 1.5 cm).

53 enantiosensors are characterized by the low detection limit at the level of mug.L(-1), wide analytic

54 the dynamic linear range can be adjusted and detection limits at a picogram level can be easily achie

55 s) are useful because of their extremely low detection limits at short measuring periods and their co

56 Sites with emissions that were below detection limit (BDL) for OTM 33A were recorded and incl

57 ance of the preconcentration system leads to detection limits below 435 cells.mL(-1) after 10 min in

58 ince all compounds had ion-molecule reaction detection limits below 500 nM, the detection limits are

59 d neutralizing antibody titers dropped below detection limits between 2 and 3 months of age, while bi

60 is not due to neuropeptides being below the detection limit but due to ions not being selected for t

61 ic absorption spectrometry have a fairly low detection limit, but the methods have many limitations a

62 ll culturing, and microscopy may reach these detection limits, but they involve both bulky and expens

63 to improve ion abundances, sensitivity, and detection limits by up to factors of ~17, ~16, and ~3, r

64 thod is faster in its reaction time, and the detection limit can be reduced to 1 ng/mL.

65 ged 0.028-0.182 mug.kg(-1) and capability of detection limit (CCbeta) ranged 0.032-0.233 ug.kg(-1).

66 irect As(III) oxidation with an experimental detection limit close to WHO guidelines.

67 vels in human serum samples yielding analyte detection limits comparable to that measured on standard

68 ate reader based on this principle, yielding detection limits comparable to that measured on standard

69 49 to 24.4 muM and 7.44 to 47.6 muM with the detection limit down to 0.59 muM and 0.97 muM, respectiv

70 early detected in the 2-15 U/mL range with a detection limit down to 0.8 U/mL.

71 mic range (10 pM to 2 muM) with an excellent detection limit (down to 7.23 pM) was achieved.

72 ctrode's surface temperature one can enhance detection limits due to improved electrode process kinet

73 ational modifications were near or below our detection limit (e.g. acetylation, ubiquitination).

74 buffer solution and untreated saliva with a detection limit equal to 19 ng/mL and 8 ng/mL in untreat

75 responses, driving disease burden below the detection limit for a greater number of patients.

76 with a log(2) ratio consistently >2, and the detection limit for CAII identification is 0.004 wt % of

77 Using nanosecond pulses, the detection limit for DMMP and PFOA in human blood plasma

78 Within 20 min, the femtomolar detection limit for miRNAs was observed, 6 orders of mag

79 ed at 10 min intervals and had a 3-h average detection limit for oxidized mercury of 33 pg m(-3).

80 The detection limit for polystyrene (PS) obtained is <1 ng o

81 ratios significantly and decreased the size detection limits for all NP dispersions investigated.

82 Finally, the detection limits for DOX extracted from buffer, perfusat

83 Method detection limits for most DBPs were between 15 and 100 n

84 Reproducibility, sample bias, and detection limits for SALDI-MS compared well to ultrafilt

85 ng NP, it is limited by relatively high size detection limits for several NP, including many of the o

86 ermine enantiomeric ratios down to 2.5% with detection limits for the D enantiomers in the nanomolar

87 The minimum detection limits for the instrument used were estimated

88 8 times lower (i.e., 2 times lower diameter detection limit) for the conical torch.

89 esents an approximate 10-fold improvement in detection limits from previous work.

90 significant improvements in the quantitative detection limit, from 62 to 1.5 mug g(-1).

91 fect transistor (SiNW-FET) biosensor, with a detection limit in the picomolar concentration range.

92 ange (13.33 nM-66.67 muM), with an estimated detection limit in the subnanomolar range (0.85 nM azith

93 AAs, other than PFBA, to be removed to below detection limits in 90 min of treatment time.

94 spectral resolution and fractional monolayer detection limits in a total experimental duration that i

95 nanopores for quantitative sensing with low detection limits in complex samples.

96 A promising strategy to lowering detection limits in electrochemical analysis is the acti

97 translate to macroscopic differences in the detection limits in environments with limited diffusion,

98 rimarily (137)Cs, which results in increased detection limits in the gamma spectra.

99 reaches high resolving power of R = 90 with detection limits in the lower ppt(v) range for different

100 h uses (1)H detection, it provides excellent detection limits in the nanogram range.

101 The resulting HPLC-DAD-ICP-sfMS system has detection limits in the picomolar range in protein buffe

102 High sensitivity was reached, with detection limits in the range 9-36 ng g(-1), never repor

103 e dynamic range, signal-to-noise ratios, and detection limits in ULF LC-MS-based measurements by sign

104 f just a few helium atoms per hour, and this detection limit is also valid for all other gases tested

105 eters at 25 months, with HIV-1 RNA below the detection limit (LLD 1 copy per mL).

106 dissociation constant (K(d)) of 25.97 nM, a detection limit (LOD) of 10 nM (2.0 ppb/0.2 mug/dL), and

107 detection in a wide concentration range with detection limits <1 pM in 150 mM buffer and cell culture

108 3.5 cc.m(-2).day(-1) to below the instrument detection limit (<0.005 cc.m(-2).day(-1)).

109 We discriminated at picomolar detection limits (<7 pM) "perfect-match" from mismatched

110 it excellent sensitivity, response time, and detection limits, making them promising candidates for v

111 The method detection limit (MDL) for the bis-difluoromethylated BPA

112 day precision (RSD <=9.0%) as well as method detection limits (MDLs below 3.6 ng g(-1)) were satisfac

113 duces an individual's HIV loads to below the detection limit, nevertheless rapid viral rebound immedi

114 The detection limit of (LOD) Cr(VI) is 0.06 ng mL(-1).

115 Experimentally immunomagnetic detection limit of 0.0001 mIU/mL has been achieved, whic

116 -EDTA ligand and furnace atomic absorption a detection limit of 0.0017 ug L(-1) and a linear range of

117 egression coefficient of 0.9943 and a lowest detection limit of 0.006 mug/mL.

118 A detection limit of 0.01 mg/L of beta-carotene (3S(B)/m),

119 was in the range of 0.05-400 ng mL(-1) with detection limit of 0.015 ng mL(-1).

120 range of 0.05-590 muM and 0.05-1220 muM and detection limit of 0.0169 muM and 0.044 muM respectively

121 showed linearity from 0.1 uM to 4 mM with a detection limit of 0.036 muM for H(2)O(2).

122 linear range of 0.150-2500 pg/mL with a low detection limit of 0.036 pg/mL.

123 The optimized MOF-sensor had a CN(-) -detection limit of 0.05 mum, which is much lower than tr

124 MIP electrode was able to detect PFOS with a detection limit of 0.05 nM, which is lower than the heal

125 0105C + 0.0630 (C:muM, R(2) = 0.9961) with a detection limit of 0.052 muM, whereas for glucose, the l

126 84C + 0.0458 (C:muM, R(2) = 0.9952) having a detection limit of 0.055 muM.

127 a dynamic range of 0.533-6.81 ng mL-1 and a detection limit of 0.079 ng mL-1.

128 ) = 0.99) from 0.4 to 62.5 ppm of SDS with a detection limit of 0.1 ppm.

129 ge from 0.36 to 5 mg L(-1) of Fe(II), with a detection limit of 0.11 mg L(-1) of Fe(II), a relative s

130 dification area, the sensor shows a dopamine detection limit of 0.11 muM in the presence of 500 muM a

131 ction of BHA from 0.33 uM to 110 uM with the detection limit of 0.11 uM (S/N = 3).

132 The UCNP-LF achieved a detection limit of 0.2-2 parasites/muL, depending on the

133 0 muM DA, with two linear calibration curve, detection limit of 0.22 muM DA, and sensitivity of 4.9 m

134 sensitivity, wide linear range and very low detection limit of 0.25 mM, this indicates that the modi

135 t an ultrahigh sensitivity featuring minimum detection limit of 0.25 ppm, long-term stability, high d

136 he novel electrochemical biosensor offered a detection limit of 0.26 pM, with a nice analytical repro

137 ultra-sensitivity to tobramycin with a lower detection limit of 0.3 nM and a quick response within 5

138 a large bandwidth of 543 kHz and an ultralow detection limit of 0.33 nW.

139 near response in the range of 1-32 nM with a detection limit of 0.34 nM and excellent recognition spe

140 ssays showed a linear response with a lowest detection limit of 0.38 and 0.48 ng/mL, respectively.

141 on of 0.03 to 0.24 mg L(-1)) with the lowest detection limit of 0.396 muM (i.e., mass/volume concentr

142 RNA polymerase) coding sequence, achieving a detection limit of 0.4 fM with a dynamic detection range

143 excellent analytical characteristics with a detection limit of 0.50 +/- 0.08 nM, a wide linear range

144 wide linear range from 10 to 2000 muM with a detection limit of 0.795 muM.

145 acetaminophen in small 40 muL samples with a detection limit of 0.8 muM and a wide linear range from

146 f 1.0 x 10(-15) - 1.0 x 10(-8) gmL(-1) and a detection limit of 0.82 fg mL(-1).

147 on is obtained from 10 to 1000 U/mL with the detection limit of 0.87 (+/- 0.07) U/mL.

148 ar range 0.005-2.5 and 2.5-130 muM and a low detection limit of 0.9 nM.

149 ted on March 4, 2020), using an assay with a detection limit of 1 copy per mL.

150 e of 0.5-30 mg.L(-1) in the samples with the detection limit of 1 mg.kg(-1).

151 ensitivity, high selectivity and a very good detection limit of 1 mM with linearity in the concentrat

152 mical aptamer-based sensor, which achieved a detection limit of 1 muM adenosine in 50% serum.

153 with a linear range from 0.1 to 5 muM and a detection limit of 1 nM.

154 Without nucleic acid amplification, a detection limit of 1 pM is achieved within 2 h.

155 linear from 5.0 to 1.0 x 10(4) cfu/mL with a detection limit of 1.0 cfu/mL.

156 vided an optimized, physiologically relevant detection limit of 1.0 nM.

157 ence of interfering compounds, with a method detection limit of 1.0 ppm.

158 d method obtained multiple detections with a detection limit of 1.04 x 10(-5) refractive index units.

159 r could detect glucose in human serum with a detection limit of 1.25 nM and preserved its stability u

160 4, sensitivity of 0.176 uA L umol(-1)(,) and detection limit of 1.32 umol L(-1) were calculated.

161 007-2012), MTBE median levels were below the detection limit of 1.4 ng/L.

162 s from 2.0 x 10(-6) to 5.0 x 10(-2) M with a detection limit of 1.58 x 10(-7) M.

163 The biosensor showed detection limit of 1.6 ng . mL(-1) and a linear dynamic

164 Under optimized conditions, detection limit of 1.7 mug L(-1) and 2.4 mug L(-1), quan

165 concentrations up to at least 5000 uM with a detection limit of 1.98 uM.

166 n through micrometre-size membranes within a detection limit of 10(5) to 10(6) atoms per second.

167 The developed qPCR assay presented a detection limit of 10.14 fg/reaction, and a linear cycle

168 High selectivity (1:1200, ovalbumin/BSA) and detection limit of 100 attomole is attained for glycans

169 24 h of incubation, resulting in an improved detection limit of 100 fM.

170 s a marijuana roadside DUI test with a lower detection limit of 100 pg/ml and a dynamic range of 100

171 e determination of RGS11 with an exceptional detection limit of 148 fg/mL and a linear dynamic range

172 l for 6 successive cycles, and we obtained a detection limit of 16.4 ng kg(-1).

173 o detect glucose linearly up to 10 mM with a detection limit of 170 muM.

174 ious microwell-based bioassays but, with the detection limit of 180 fM, it is to-date the most sensit

175 A detection limit of 2 fM was achieved with a total assay

176 nging from 10 nM to 5 muM, with an estimated detection limit of 2 nM.

177 ge of 1.0 x 10(-2) to 80.0 ng mL(-1) and the detection limit of 2.0 x 10(-3) ng mL(-1) are obtained t

178 ration range from 2.7 ppt to 0.3 ppm, with a detection limit of 2.7 ppt.

179 A linear calibration curve with a lower detection limit of 22 nM DA, and sensitivity of 13.8 mA/

180 Giardia lamblia, with high sensitivity (the detection limit of 22 nM) and high specificity.

181 mity ligation assay by up to 55-fold, with a detection limit of 2277 proteins per cell and with detec

182 PLA(2) activity from 5 U/L to 200 U/L with a detection limit of 3 U/L.

183 nge between 10(3) and 10(9) cells L(-1) with detection limit of 3 x 10(3) cells L(-1) of A. minutum A

184 ween 10(4) CFU/ml and 5 x 10(6) CFU/ml and a detection limit of 3 x 10(3) CFU/ml.

185 rying between 3.8 and 76 ug L(-1) with lower detection limit of 3.02 ug L(-1).

186 and 5.0 x 10(-7) to 2.5 x 10(-4) M with low detection limit of 3.10 x 10(-8) M and 8.52 x 10(-8) M f

187 mM(-1) or (2.60 +/- 0.02) muA mM(-1) cm(-2), detection limit of 3.3 muM, and reproducibility of 5.2%

188 entration between 0.1 muM and 10 muM, with a detection limit of 31 nM.

189 c range for Cyt c from 175 to 1750 pM with a detection limit of 32.7 pM.

190 in activities in serum, achieving a thrombin detection limit of 38 muU/mul in 10% (v/v) human serum i

191 injections per hour, together with adequate detection limit of 4.7 mumol L(-1).

192 6) to 63.3 x 10(-4) M for G, A, and T with a detection limit of 4.7, 3.5 and 55 nM, respectively.

193 Within a detection limit of 42 RNA copies per reaction, SHERLOCK

194 e from 50 pg mL(-1) to 100 ng mL(-1), with a detection limit of 44.5 pg mL(-1) & 41.3 pg mL(-1) for s

195 Over 15% of samples report a method detection limit of 5 mug/L.

196 s an ultrasensitive detection of DNA, with a detection limit of 5.2 fM (a linear range of from 0.1 pM

197 in a dynamic range of 10 pM to 10 nM with a detection limit of 5.9 pM.

198 coli O157:H7 in chicken samples with a lower detection limit of 50 CFU/mL.

199 ght and heavy metal ions with a breakthrough detection limit of 50 nM.

200 rinitrophenylmethylnitramine (tetryl) with a detection limit of 6.81 ng mL(-1) achieved for TNT, 17.2

201 timization of operating conditions yielded a detection limit of 613 +/- 13 pM for CE of fluorescein d

202 s for the detection of 5-HT with a nanomolar detection limit of 63 +/- 11 nM for 5-HT through a wide

203 picric acid proved that the probe achieved a detection limit of 63 nM.

204 e, a quantification limit of 10.6 ppm, and a detection limit of 7.9 ppm.

205 At 1 kHz for a 1 mum device, we estimate a detection limit of 700 nT Hz(-1/2) at room temperature,

206 yield of ~ 80,000 photon MeV(-1), and a low detection limit of 72.8 nGy s(-1).

207 rations expected in must and wine samples, a detection limit of 75 +/- 12 mg L(-1) K(+), and an adequ

208 ear range of 100 fg/mL to 5 pg/mL with a low detection limit of 75 fg/mL.

209 igher than the average ion-molecule reaction detection limit of 75 nM but still within physiologicall

210 ral flow format as an exemplar, we achieve a detection limit of 8.2 x 10(-19) molar for a biotin-avid

211 A detection limit of 9.1 x 10(-17) g/g for (135)Cs and (13

212 With a detection limit of a few fmol mm(-2), and the possibilit

213 he selective detection of Fe(3+) ions with a detection limit of as low as 2.5 x 10(-6) M.

214 The detection limit of CST revealed 1.2 x 10(4) for Treponem

215 this study can be defined as determining the detection limit of electrochemical nanobiosensors as wel

216 The Grp94-OLF interaction is below the detection limit of fluorescence polarization measurement

217 However, the detection limit of HX-MS has not been widely investigate

218 is there a useful approach for defining the detection limit of HX-MS measurements.

219 -IMS is shown to have a resolution >80 and a detection limit of low nanograms for the analysis of com

220 at matches the accuracy of and surpasses the detection limit of MS, the current gold standard of cGAM

221 The detection limit of our proposed SEF-AuNI sensors for mod

222 d approximately 273-folds improvement in the detection limit of the analyte.

223 over the surface of the devices and thus the detection limit of the devices has been achieved to a va

224 The detection limit of the eazyplex PJA was analogous to 10(

225 An analysis of the detection limit of the method as a function of both time

226 The visual detection limit of the MRSA aptasensor swab was less tha

227 The detection limit of the new 25 mum diameter glucose senso

228 h is four orders of magnitude lower than the detection limit of the same aptasensor using an amperome

229 Under optimal conditions, the detection limit of the sensor is as low as 0.47 ng/L, an

230 The detection limit of these sensors is determined by the De

231 The detection limit of Western blot for low-abundance PEGyla

232 e assay of cannabidiol in body fluids with a detection limit of ~0.25 ng/mL.

233 bility of 3.0%, repeatability of 9.2%, and a detection limit of ~0.75 muM.

234 The sensor has a detection limit of ~1 pg/mL and provides results in less

235 n be assessed after just 4 h of culture at a detection limit of ~100 live cells per 50 muL sample.

236 The method enabled a detection limit of ~110 fg/mL biotinylated bovine serum

237 data analysis methods compared, leading to a detection limit of ~3 mg/mL for Gly.

238 to respectively 0.5 muM, 25 muM, 30 muM, and detection limits of 0.009 muM, 0.4 muM, 0.3 muM.

239 Taking an adsorption time of 15 min, detection limits of 0.04 mug L (-1) and 0.2 mug L(-1)and

240 -reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase (detection limits of 0.1, 87, and 13 nM, respectively).

241 figures of merit have been achieved, such as detection limits of 0.33 and 9.18 ng g(-1) for mercury a

242 catechin, kaempferol, and caffeic acid with detection limits of 0.98, 1.36, 1.48, 1.81, and 2.55 ng

243 oassay developed for mouse immunoglobulin G, detection limits of 1.5 ng/mL and >10 ng/mL were achieve

244 yethylene glycol (PEG) chemistry enables low detection limits of 10 pg mL(-1) or better for all prote

245 detection and quantification of OPs upto the detection limits of 10.2, 158.2, 10.3 and 122.7 nM, resp

246 ach drug in the range of 10.0-300.0 muM with detection limits of 2.07 muM and 1.34 muM for salinomyci

247 Detection limits of 3.5-19.4 pg of fluorine on-column ar

248 1000 muM and 0.09-3 mM for formaldehyde with detection limits of 48.2 nM and 31.6 muM, respectively.

249 Detection limits of 5.23-17.1 mug/L for water and 5.21-3

250 nmol carbonyl per mg of oxidized protein and detection limits of 50 mug oxidized BSA and 0.75 pmol ca

251 Continuous analyte enrichment afforded detection limits of 500 fg of protein (250 pM) while sim

252 x 10(8) and 1.5442 x 10(7) M(-1) with lower detection limits of 52 and 110 nM, respectively.

253 ar, Ni(3)HHTP(2) MOFs demonstrated nanomolar detection limits of 63 +/- 11 nM for DA and 40 +/- 17 nM

254 The detection limits of common gases such as CH(4), CO(2), a

255 Despite the vastly different detection limits of NMR and MS, chemometric analysis of

256 (VX) acids, rapidly with high selectivity at detection limits of sub-10 pg/mL in 25% serum (by volume

257 al ions were all greater than 99.2%, and the detection limits of the method ranged from 0.3 to 6.7 ng

258 in accessible biofluids at levels below the detection limits of these techniques.

259 eRPA has a detection limit on patient samples down to 5 viral copie

260 monstrated but is not widely used due to the detection limit on protein size, the requirement of vola

261 oplets, with signal-to-noise ratios >100 and detection limits on the order of 10 pg.

262 tification of five representative drugs, and detection limits on the scale of 1-100 ng are achieved f

263 The low noise level that enables the low detection limit originates from a planar meander element

264 e LFA, resulting in a 30-fold improvement in detection limit over the conventional LFA when detecting

265 h nonstationary 2D NMR signals and raise the detection limits over 10 times.

266 The LSF technique showed improved detection limits over and above synchrotron and UV imagi

267 The linear range, detection limit, quantification limit, and preconcentrat

268 Detection limits ranged at 0.02-0.07 ng mL(-1) for all s

269 ted an adequate precision and linearity with detection limits ranging from 0.133 to 0.509 mg/L.

270 s, mononitroaniline, and dinitrotoluene with detection limits ranging from 1 x 10(-4) to 9 x 10(-4) g

271 ad a wide linear range of (fM ~ nM), and the detection limit reached (0.24-1.67) fM for four highly-t

272 ion constant: 36.0 fM) and that the method's detection limit reached 9.3 ag L(-1) with a calibration

273 The detection limits realized by the proposed sensor, under

274 nion in the range from 4 to 40 000 pM with a detection limit (S/N = 3) of 1.2 pM, which was 5000-fold

275 Under optimal conditions, detection limits (S/N = 3) of the method were in a range

276 concentrations ranged from below the method detection limit to 250,000 ng/g with a median concentrat

277 andwidth of the quadrupole improved the size detection limit to 4.2 nm and enabled the resolution of

278 ic is a wide linear range electrode with low detection limit to sense glucose concentration in the bo

279 esulted in a noticeable decrease of the size detection limits to 3.5 nm for the Ag NP and 12.1 nm for

280 preconcentration technique allowed very low detection limits to be reached for all the substances.

281 e range of DBPs, producing the lowest method detection limits to-date for many compounds, including h

282 olume hydrodynamic system helps to lower the detection limit toward physiologically relevant concentr

283 -per-million (ppm) to part-per-billion (ppb) detection limits toward NH(3) (0.31-0.33 ppm), H(2)S (19

284 We optimize the magnetic field detection limit under different conditions.

285 The limit of quantification was 0.01%; the detection limit was 0.003%.

286 The detection limit was 3.30 x 10(-3) ng L(-1) and the quant

287 The detection limit was 50 CFU/mL.

288 r was found between 5 and 400 ng/mL, and the detection limit was calculated as 22 ng/mL (n = 6) using

289 The detection limit was challenged by spiking small fraction

290 the calibration linearity, sensitivity, and detection limit, we converted the RGB intensities into s

291 The detection limits were 0.39, 0.060, 0.021, and 0.025 ng m

292 With optimized conditions, the detection limits were 0.63, 4.3 and 0.37 mg kg(-1), and

293 Also, mass detection limits were found to be similar or up to 8 tim

294 The detection limits were in the range of 0.04-0.10 ug mL(-1

295 future legislation should require sub-mug/L detection limits, which are easily achievable with commo

296 probes on the surface provided low-picomolar detection limits while utilizing small 10 muL sample vol

297 muM in 30 mm depth, which decreased to below detection limit within 2 days afterward.

298 The detection limit, within an appreciable signal/noise rati

299 d detection but are limited to the picomolar detection limit without an amplification step.

300 vironment of CRISPR, achieving a femto-molar detection limit without enzymatic amplification.